The views published here are of an ecosocialist nature and from the broad red, green and black political spectrum. The opinions expressed are the personal opinions of the writers and are not necessarily the view of any political parties or groupings that they belong to. Please feel free to comment on the posts here. If you would like to contact us directly, you can email us at mike.shaughnessy@btinternet.com. Follow the blog on Twitter @MikeShaugh

While hostility from the conservative press was to be
expected, I must say I have been quite taken aback by how many Labour
commentators have completely failed to grasp the mentality of Green supporters
or what the "Green Surge" is all about.

Attention then turned to the General Election, which dominated
the blog news agenda.

I like to tease my Green friends that I was the first Green
parliamentarian in the UK! I was elected as a Labour MEP for Essex and Herts in
1994 but quickly fell out with Tony Blair, I think I was a little ahead of
public opinion in recognising that Blair was a fraud and a Tory!

In the fifth of a series of interviews with Green Left
supporting candidates at the General Election, Mike Shaughnessy talks to the
Green Party's Lesley Grahame, candidate for the target constituency of Norwich
South.

Around two hundred people assembled at the German Embassy in
London this evening, to show solidarity with the Greek people in their fight
against the vicious and vindictive bail out terms forced on them by their
creditors in the EU and IMF.

The Labour leadership contest and its unlikely winner became
the big political news story.

I’ve not commented until now on Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign to
become the Labour party leader, preferring to leave it as a Labour party
matter. But it is becoming clear, that if Corbyn wins, it will have a big
impact on the Green party’s fortunes.

Then as a side show to Corbyn’s election the EU referendum made
a strong appearance.

I don’t know whether Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the
Labour Party, reads this blog, but his strategy for the upcoming referendum on
Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU) now appears to be remarkably
similar to what I recommended here on this blog ten days ago.

Fall-out from the new Tory government’s welfare policies hit
the headlines.

The figures from the Health and Social Care Information
Centre show that in the worst affected areas, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of
Scilly, 2.4 people out of every 100,000 were admitted to hospital with a
primary diagnosis of malnutrition.

Then the vote in Parliament for the UK to bomb IS in Syria
proved popular amongst the readership here.

Monday, 21 December 2015

James O'Connor is one of the pioneers of ecosocialist thinking, in the modern age anyway. He was the founding editor of the ecosocialist journal Capitalism Nature Socialism in 1988. The magazine is now edited by Joel Kovel. Below is an edited extract from a piece written by Cy Gonick first published here.

“Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction,”
O’Connor’s title article in the very first issue of CNS, has had an enormous
influence in shaping ecosocialism as a system of thought. Sometimes reprinted
as “The Second Contradiction of Capitalism,” the argument has put an enduring
Marxist imprint on ecosocialism.

The first contradiction refers to capitalism’s tendency
towards overproduction with its virtually unlimited capacity to produce
compared to consumption, which is constrained by competitive pressures on
capital to cut costs by cutting wages and speeding up work (or, in Marx’s
terms, increasing the rate of exploitation).

O’Connor argues that capitalism suffers from a second
contradiction, arising from capital’s addiction to growth, causing degradation
or depletion of what Marx called “the conditions of production.” While O’Connor
drew the concept from Marx, he also noted that “he [Marx] never dreamed that
the concept would or could be used in the way that I will use it in this
chapter and no one could have used the concept in this way until the appearance
of Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation.”

In this rich passage, talking about how the market treats
land and labor as if they were mere commodities, Polanyi wrote:

To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the
fate of human beings and their natural environment … would result in the
demolition of society. For the alleged commodity “labor power” cannot be shoved
about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the
human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity …
Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would
perish from the effects of social exposure … Nature would be reduced to its
elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, … the power to
produce food and raw materials destroyed.

By the “second contradiction of capitalism,” then, O’Connor
means that capital accumulation can be jeopardized by so fouling the natural
conditions of production that it totally breaks down — the likely effect of
climate change; or by raising the cost of production arising from increasingly
depleted raw materials and from the need to invent and develop substitutes; or
by the state being forced to allocate increasing amounts of resources for
improved health and safety provisions, for restoring ruined soil and forests,
polluted lakes, rivers and oceans and shore lines.

Capital can’t prevent itself from impairing its own
conditions because it arises from capital’s incessant need to grow. This is of
course Marx’s first law of capital accumulation: “accumulate, accumulate, that
is Moses and the prophets.” Capital has no choice. Only continuous growth
allows businesses to survive the competition for market share and profit.

These tendencies have been analyzed in considerable depth
beginning in the 1960s. Erich Fromm and Andre Gorz held that consumer
satisfaction, which serves as the main ideological justification of economic
growth, arises from our alienation from work and community. We may want good
work and decent communities, but we learn to need only more consumer goods. As
Fromm put it, “under capitalism man is transformed into a homo consumens who
tries to compensate for this inner emptiness by continuous and ever-increasing
consumption.” Or, in Gorz’s words, the corporation does not simply sell
consumer goods. It sells means of distraction, “means of dreaming that one is
human — because there is no chance of actually becoming such.”

Gorz further elaborated on how capitalism avoided the
saturation of markets by designing products with built-in obsolescence —
reducing the durability of appliances to a half dozen years, for example; by
introducing throw-away products; by filling our heads with new wants, thereby
generating relative scarcities and new dissatisfactions.

In an essay he wrote in 1973 aptly titled “Affluence Dooms
Itself,” Gorz presciently described how capital accumulation impairs the
natural conditions of production — cutting down the Amazon forest, the
regenerative source of a quarter of the oxygen in our planet’s air; how it
exhausts the supply of clean drinking water, forcing cities to haul in water
from thousands of miles away; how it kills off marine life; and disables a
large portion of the workforce through injury (1 in 6 French workers).

Around the same time, the American biologist Barry Commoner
described in detail how, in the first years after WWII, capital systematically
switched to more profitable — but more polluting — technologies, materials and
processes that substituted cheap energy for labor: detergents over soap, truck
freight over railroad freight, aluminum, plastics, and cement over lumber and
steel. A year or so after it appeared, I wrote this comment on Commoner’s
treatment in his The Closing Circle:

The fouling of the air, land or water, the disposal of waste
materials, and the disappearance of non-renewable resources are costs that are
seldom borne by the enterprises that produce them. They are passed onto
consumers in the form of higher prices, passed back to workers in the form of
shorter lives lived due to radiation, mercury or DDT exposure; higher laundry
bills due to soot; higher costs of recreation due to pollution of nearby lakes,
etc. And they are passed onto future generations. They comprise a massive
subsidization by society and by nature to private enterprise.

This is what the economist K.William Kapp meant when he
wrote in 1972 that “capitalism must be regarded as an economy of unpaid costs.”

Why capitalism can’t solve the problem

We know that capitalism has shown itself to be enormously
resilient, adaptable and flexible. It has already introduced countervailing
measures to blunt the degradation of the conditions of production. Capital is
producing so-called green commodities like fuel-efficient cars, and it has
invented all manner of anti-pollution devices. The state has brought in
measures to recycle and conserve resources and to subsidize the development of
renewable energy resources, to regulate the use of certain toxic products like
pesticides, to increase emission standards for automobiles, to impose a tax on
carbon and to create a market for carbon offsets.

Some of these measures will no doubt have effect, even if
only in the short term. Capital will not permit reform measures that unduly
impair its profit. This is why the emphasis is on technological and
market-based solutions. Technological solutions include carbon capture and
sequestration and geo-engineering schemes (injecting huge quantities of sulfur
dioxide into the stratosphere to block a portion of the incoming sunlight).
Market-based solutions aim to nudge business and consumer behavior in an
environmentally friendly direction, convincing individuals to change their bad
habits and promoting devices like carbon offsets that allow corporations to
make money out of reducing emissions.

To elaborate, capitalism treats nature as a free resource.
But since resources are limited, continuous growth eventually results in
depletion, species extinction, toxic radioactive waste, contamination of water
resources, destruction of forests, climate change. Finally acknowledged by mainstream
economists, their solution, now widely accepted by most environmentalists and
policy makers, is to put a price on pollution, to further commodify nature.

But consider. A recent United Nations study found that the
world’s 3,000 largest corporations cause $2.2 trillion in environmental damage
every year, more than half attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. What would
happen if full eco-prices were superimposed by way, say, of carbon taxes, i.e.
taxes sufficient to cover the cost of cleaning up pollution produced by each
commodity; putting the recyclable parts of each of them back into circulation;
developing substitute sources for depleted materials; restoring the ecosystems
damaged by each commodity, including health and injuries to humans — think
automobiles? Wherever possible, firms would, of course, pass the cost onto
consumers or back onto workers in the form of lower wages and salaries. Taxes
of this order, likely doubling or more the prices of most commodities, would
clearly impact unevenly on the population, further widening disparities. Some
firms would go bankrupt. So compatibility with the requirements of the
capitalist system obviously imposes strict limits on the results that
market-based measures can produce.

The new environmental
proletariat

O’Connor believes that just as labor exploitation threw up
working class movements that fought to constrain capital’s werewolf tendency to
consume workers in its quest for profits, capital’s recklessness with nature
leads to a “rebellion of nature” as “powerful social movements demand an end to
ecological exploitation.”

Following O’Connor’s thinking, the outcome of the second
contradiction will depend a great deal on the strength of these movements to
force capital to fully confront the impairment of production conditions and
then block it from shifting its costs onto the working class, farmers and
indigenous peoples.

Further, the outcome of capital failing to stop world
temperatures from reaching the tipping point beyond which all manner of natural
disasters would befall the planet also depends on the strength of the social
movements. This of course is the starting off point to create a global ecosocial
movement.

In 1998, in what is likely one of the last things he wrote
on the subject, James O’Connor raised the question: Is it possible to organize
an international red-green movement — a coordinated response to global capital
— to institute new democratic, ecologically rational ways of life?

Ten years later, as if to answer, Joel Kovel declared
“global warming puts the entire history and the pre-history as well, of
industrial capital, into the dock. In a word: a moment for the global
realization of ecosocialism has arrived.”

More recently still, Victor Wallis, editor of the
publication Socialism and Democracy, has argued that it is among the peasants
and indigenous peoples of the global South that “the most radical expressions
of environmental awareness” have arisen. “For these populations capitalist
plunder of the environment … is a direct assault on their homes and
livelihoods.” Moreover, their occupation of the land and direct ties to its
long-term sustainability place them in a strong strategic position. “Their own
‘parochial needs,’” writes Wallis, “embody the collective needs of the entire
human species — not to mention other endangered life forms — to stop the
relentless destruction of the ecosphere…. Although such peoples are among the
world’s poorest, they have been thrust into a vanguard position.”

In a similar vein, John Bellamy Foster, the most prolific of
contemporary ecologists, writes: “Today, the ecological frontline is arguably
to be found in the inhabitants of the Ganges-Brahmaputa Delta and of the
low-lying fertile coast area of the Indian Ocean and China Seas — the state of
Kerala in India, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia. They too, as in the case of
Marx’s proletariat, have nothing to lose from the radical changes necessary to
avert (or adapt to) disaster…. This, then, potentially constitutes the global
epicenter of the new environmental proletariat.”

Cy Gonick founded Canadian Dimension magazine and was in the
NDP government in Manitoba from 1969–1971. This article was originally
published in part in Canadian Dimension.

Sunday, 20 December 2015

The Paris Agreement has mostly been greeted with enthusiasm, though it contains at least one obvious flaw.

Few seem to have noticed that the main tool mooted for keeping us within the 2℃ global warming target is a massive expansion of carbon trading, including offsetting, which allows the market exchange of credits between companies and nations to achieve an overall emissions reduction. That’s despite plenty of evidence that markets haven’t worked well enough, or quickly enough, to actually keep the planet safe.

Play with words

What we have ended up with is some murky semantics. Though terms such as “carbon trading”, “carbon pricing”, “carbon offsetting” and “carbon markets” don’t appear anywhere in the text, the agreement is littered with references to a whole range of new and expanded market-based tools.

Article 6 refers to “voluntary cooperation” between countries in the implementation of their emissions targets “to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions”. If that’s not exactly plain speak, then wait for how carbon trading is referred to as “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes”.

The same Article also provides for an entirely new, UN-controlled international market mechanism. All countries will be able to trade carbon with each other, helping each to achieve their national targets for emissions cuts. While trading between companies, countries or blocs of countries is done on a voluntary basis, the new mechanism, dubbed the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), will be set up to succeed the existing Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism, providing for a massive expansion of carbon trading and offsetting while setting some basic standards.

Carbon markets create more problems than they solve

The short answer is no. These tools will not save the planet from overheating. In fact, they might be counter-productive to the goal of limiting warming to 2℃, never mind the unrealistic 1.5℃ ambition.

The Paris Agreement is keen to avoid such pitfalls, explicitly stating that it wants “environmental integrity and transparency" with “robust accounting”. Such promises have been given numerous times before, yet carbon trading and offsetting keep running into problems.

At the start of the Paris climate talks I warned that they would fail. I’m afraid I was right. While the final agreement contains words of urgency, ambition and action, I have serious doubts that the actual tools that are supposed to deliver the much needed emissions cuts will work fast enough, if at all.

By adopting carbon trading and offsetting as main mitigation tools, the Paris Agreement has created the possibility for years, if not decades, of further delays. Time we can ill afford.

Steffen Böhmis Professor in Management and Sustainability, and Director, Essex Sustainability Institute, University of Essex.

Saturday, 19 December 2015

I'm posting this not because I necessarily agree with the piece, but it is interesting and another strain of ecosocialist thinking that I have not come across before.

Mike Shaughnessy

The Political Philosophy and Organizational Form of an Integral Society

Any discussion of socialism these days must keep in mind the developmental distinctions of socialism: Stalin and Mao were red-authoritarian and blue-traditional state socialists, with orange-industrialist aspirations. The USSR and Mao's China never had communism, those were state socialist dictatorships in a mostly agrarian society (red-blue), something Marx suggested could not develop into communism because you can't skip levels of development, meaning you can't skip the stage of orange-capitalism and its dialectics of development for the means (technology and resources) and capabilities (knowledge, skills, and organization) to emerge whereby a global communist society could eventually thrive. Castro and Chavez (as well as present day China to a lesser extent) are orange-industrial state socialists by virtue of their need to develop their underdeveloped countries (although the American embargo has made this difficult for Cuba). Even America could be considered an orange-socialist state insofar as there are massive welfare subsidies to corporations and the rich. Orange-green or modern-postmodern socialism can be found mainly in the European and Scandinavian models of the pre-austerity welfare state. An integral yellow socialism has not yet existed on a large scale, but when and if it does emerge I think it will be the precondition for the eventual emergence of an egalitarian or communist non-dual turquoise society that would simultaneously create and be created by Buddha-Christ citizens.

Keeping these socio-developmental distinctions in mind, if what we want at this point in the crisis or failure of modern and postmodern capitalist values and institutions is an integral post-postmodern society at yellow, it's probably not going to be a kinder-gentler 'conscious capitalism' (a functional modern-postmodern system), but rather a libertarian eco-socialism; that is to say, a low fossil-fuel permaculture based society organized around self-managed decentralized local communities of direct democracy federated into regional, national, and global governing bodies. Local communities would be much more energy generating and autonomous than they are today, and the people themselves would decide directly how they would live among themselves, not mediated by representatives "under the influence" of big money or far removed from the lives of the citizenry, but through the independent municipalities where they live and work in citizens' assemblies, workers councils, trade unions, and peer-2-peer cooperatives. So it's not that there wouldn't be a city, state, and national structure under an organizational mode of libertarian eco-socialism (a post-postmodern integral society), but how that structure operated within and between the parts would be vastly different.

Small business practices could be encouraged between local communities, while local communities would decide for themselves the laws and regulations they would follow. State and national governing bodies couldn't come in and raid your marijuana garden, for instance, but if a community wanted to burn coal or burn witches at the stake the larger governing bodies could intervene, as well as deliberate over the larger projects of a collective humanity for the purposes of common safety, sustainability, and civilizational advancement. So there would be much greater freedom and diversity at the local level, but at the same time an integrated vision of the common good, hence, libertarian yet socialist. Of course, the many details of self-governance cannot be planned in advance or dictated to posterity but can only be worked-out by the people themselves in dialogical participation in a flex-flow self-governing mode of being and consciousness, which is also the pre-condition for human development to yellow post-postmodernism.

How then are we to get there from here? If we look at history, particularly the transition from feudalism to capitalism, a new level of development in civilization was brought about largely as a result of seizing power from a failing system and imposing a “higher standard” of values and practices on the previous level. And I think it's no different now, now that we need to seize power from the prevailing elites and impose green and yellow values and practices on the masses who must be and can only be lifted-up by the leading edge of the historical moment. The only other option is to have this new world order of decentralization imposed by a catastrophic collapse of the global capitalist system, where everyone is forced into local survival groups at the archaic and brutal red worlds of the mad-max warlords. But wouldn't the conscious choice to decentralize social organization by social revolution, rationally and relatively orderly, be preferable? Of course it would.

However, social revolution to the next level is not about persuasion (idealists be damned). Again, it's about seizing power and imposing the higher level to which the masses must follow, like teaching children through an enforced system of rewards and punishments to grow up. In this case, to grow up and out of orange individualism and industrial technologies and into a green and yellow techno-collectivist libertarianism, by the force of law and the institutional habit of the long (normative) revolution. Indeed, history is made not by the force of persuasion but by the persuasion of force, and ultimately by the newly habituated beliefs and practices.

The crucial thing in the next stage of our collective development is getting the collective center of gravity to an orange, green and yellow alliance rather than the red, blue and orange one that we have now. The current problem is firstly the failure of the mean-orange meme to sustain human communities and the natural environment on which they are based, and secondly the failure to move beyond the modern narrative of meritocratic hierarchy based on individual achievement to a new narrative of social liberty and equity based on the spiritual integrity of each and all, otherwise known as libertarian eco-socialism (yellow).

But all this isn't so simple to see, at least in America. A century of anti-socialist propaganda and oppression has muted the masses to its vision, to its own collective potential, and the socio-political and cultural fragmentation of green-postmodernism has distracted the progressive arch of history away from the prize of enlightened diversity in unity toward the disintegrating order of the global neo-liberal dystopia.

Joe Corbett has spent the last ten years living in Shanghai and Beijing, China. He has taught at American and Chinese universities using the AQAL model as an analytical tool in Western Literature, Sociology and Anthropology, Environmental Science, and Communications. He has a BA in Philosophy and Religion as well as an MA in Interdisciplinary Social Science, and did his PhD work on modern and postmodern discourses of self-development, all at public universities in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. He can be reached at oversoul2001@yahoo.com.

Monday, 14 December 2015

Reading the main stream media you would be forgiven for
thinking that the climate crisis has, at one fell swoop, been solved by the
agreement reached at the Paris COP21 Climate Summit. Even some hard-nosed
climate groups have welcomed the agreement, and it is much better than the
abject failure of the last climate meeting in Copenhagen, which merely kicked
the climate can down the road. Reducing
the target limit to 1.5C from 2C is sensible and a step forward but it is only to be an
aspiration, at this stage anyway.

The can kicking this time, is that no binding targets have
been set, but they will be reviewed in five years time instead. But even if
countries do what they say will do, and even if this becomes a binding
commitment in 2020, the 1.5C limit will be breached, mainly by the richer countries,
who have promised actions that will in all probability raise global temperatures by 3C. They are
basing their carbon reduction on very optimistic assumptions about Bioenergy
with Carbon Capture and storage, which would inevitably lead to massive land
grabs, from the poorest people, putting food security at risk.

Although financing to help the poorest countries was agreed
to help them adapt, no amount was agreed, or a date when the finance will be
available and for what? The text of the
agreement even reduces the obligations on financing from the ricer nations and
increases the financial obligations for the poorer ones.

The richer countries have promised to cut emissions, but not
by that much. The US will cut 15% of their carbon emissions by 2030 and the
European Union a not much better reduction of 20% over the next 15 years.
Japan, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina have made similar 1% per year
promises of a reduction in the next 15 years.

On the other hand some countries will increase emissions,
some quite a lot. These nations now produce two thirds of global emissions,
with the countries that have agreed to reductions emitting only one third. China, India
and Russia will increase emissions by 25 to 30% over the same period, so even
if all promises are kept, it looks impossible to keep below a 1.5C increase
globally.

Of course it is only fair that the emerging and developing
countries are allowed some increase in emissions, since western nations have
been pumping out most of the emissions for 200 years, and now effectively
export our emissions to China and India through the manufacturing industries.
But western nations need to do more to reduce further our emissions and make
sure that finance is available to developing countries for clean energy
production.

And our old friend carbon trading is included in the
agreement, which will no doubt be rigged in favour of the polluting industries
making even bigger profits, and the traders taking a healthy slice.

The rhetoric from the politicians, especially from the rich
countries after the conference was also clearly at odds with the real life
policies of the time. In Britain, we have just slashed subsidies on solar energy and
are making it more difficult to get planning permission for on shore wind
turbines. At the same time we are pushing the fracking industry and overturning
local government decisions to refuse fracking permission, as in Lancashire.

There was a very respectable turn out of 20,000 at the Paris
talks demonstration despite all of the difficulties of protesting in the city after the
recent terrorist attacks. We need to redouble our efforts to force some real
action, not just words on climate change. The danger is, with all the media
hype surrounding this agreement, the public will think everything has been
sorted out. The fight goes on.

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Some people are forced to spend their entire lives as climate change refugees – people of the Solomon Islands are one example.

Extreme weather, drought and floods have led in part to the migration to European countries from the Middle East and African Continent.

If we don’t address the issues of climate and global warning there will be increased refugees heading towards Europe and other parts of the globe. Not out of choice but because they have no choice.

We have seen increasing demonisation and labelling of migrants and refugees as benefit tourists and economic migrants coming to steal jobs and responsible for lack of housing and jobs and services by governments with no consideration for the effects of climate change. Wednesday was the UN day for the abolition of slavery but Western governments are fast to forget their colonial pasts, stripping resources from many of the countries most impacted by climate change.

For the past 3 months I have been involved in coordinating and organising aid distributions in Calais.

The so called Jungle in Calais is not a camp – it is a shanty town where people live in inhumane conditions:

30 or so toilets for around 5000 people, 2 showers, inadequate clean water, dealing with climate issues right there as high winds and storms and heavy rains destroy tents and camping structures – made of tree branches, twigs and tarpaulin / plastic sheets, Having no mains electricity supply mean that people are walking 2 to 3 hours to collect fire wood, making fires to cook and for heat, using candles for light in the evenings and dependent on generators and gas cylinders – this has led to frequent fires- often very bad – destroying everything they have – including documents and personal items.

Illness is spreading due to inadequate conditions, lack of hot food etc and if you look at the countries those there and in other camps across Europe they are from countries impacted by the effects of climate.

Sudanese make up the majority of people in Calais – 60% - Sudan is the largest African country – arid land and desert impact on food due to climate impact on agriculture – one of the most vulnerable countries to drought in the world.

Syria has had several droughts meaning that people have to leave farmland / rural areas to overcrowded cities.

Other groups include Ethiopians and Eritreans and Iranians who have also experienced drought. Afghanistans are the second biggest community there, cold winters and hot summers, droughts and floods has led to loss of crops with 6.7 million Afghans impacted by disasters and extreme weather between 1998 and 2012.

In turn the countries most responsible for climate change are usually the ones rejecting, demonising and labelling those fleeing its effects.

The countries most responsible for historical emissions from 1850 to 2007 are in order

Migrants and refugees from the poorest countries contribute little to the causes of climate change in turn suffer disproportionately from its effects.

Higher temperatures and heavier rainfall cause drought and floods, this in turn leads to greater food and water insecurity, deepening poverty and furthering social inequality.

This leads to mass migration, displacement, conflict and millions are forced to move in order to survive.

Human instinct is to survive, human beings have been migrating since the beginning of time. When those in the West move to other countries they are ex-pats and seen as acceptable, legitimate and respectable, whilst stigmas and hatred are attached to those from poorer countries, not moving as a choice as those in the West usually do, but because they have no choice.

Climate change also threatens rights – rights to safe adequate water and food, access to health services and housing - this has a knock on impact on child poverty and deepens race and gender discrimination and inequality.

Economic instability means opportunities and rights are reduced.

Governments, trade unions and civil society have a responsibility to address and minimise the consequences for human beings of rapid global warming.

We need equitable, just and binding agreements with developed countries acting first and financing for climate change initiatives plus
Adaptation of strategies for capacity building and research.

Social inequality created by the effects of climate change must be addressed as all other social inequality should be.

We need to look at the link to austerity and cuts because there is one. Economic instability combined with climate change impacts on the poorest but also in times of austerity racism increases and the far right grows as we have seen across Europe. Racism and islamophobia is deepening every day – I have experienced and witnessed this first hand as an anti racist, equality and justice campaigner. So if you are a migrant / refugee who is black, a person of colour or Muslim you face an added level of discrimination and attack.

An issue for those seeking asylum or a new home and new start in a safe place is that they are not recognised legally as refugees if they are migrating because of climate change.

1951 Geneva Convention regarding the status of refugees says you must prove fear of persecution. The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights says it is not legally possible to apply for asylum from outside the country so for all those refugees in Calais, stuck in limbo between France and the UK, the only chance they have is to risk their lives every night trying to get on trains and in trucks - many have died and even more have serious injuries and disabilities from their attempts to get to the UK.

Those fleeing climate change do not meet the legal definition of refugee.

The UNHCR, UN Refugee Agency says that camps should be the exception for those in forced displacement and they should be permitted to exercise their rights and freedoms.

In Calais there is not even a refugee camp in the proper sense - just a makeshift shanty town on asbestos infested waste land and refugees are frequently brutalised by police in an attempt to keep them boxed into this land.

The UN says that there should be links to host communities with access to the local economy and infrastructure and service delivery to live peacefully without harassment.

Complete opposite is true in Calais – last month a high court ruled that the Calais authority must provide adequate toilet facilities and collect refuge – it is charities on the ground like L’auberge, and secour catholique together with individual voluntary groups such as my own org BARAC UK that are provided food, essentials, volunteers to sort the warehouse of donations, distribute, clean and build.

There is a gap in international law in terms of protection for climate change migrants who would need to characterise climate change as persecution. Extreme weather is harmful but does not generally meet the high threshold of persecution and they have to identify a persecutor – could be argued that developed countries, industrialised countries or the international community is the persecutor.

But they still have to meet the criteria of persecution being due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, social group etc.

Climate change does not distinguish but does impact disproportionately – more likely to be black, people of colour, indigenous.

There is an impact on human rights and the right to life, right to adequate standard of living, food, clothing, and housing are all impacted.

For those who have got through the system but are rejected and facing removal they have to show they will be removed to a place of torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, physical or mental suffering.

Refugees in Calais are all suffering from post traumatic stress due to the war, poverty or persecution they fled in the first place and in addition the journey they endured, dangerous, exhausting and frightening – many I spoke had survived the Mediterranean on perilous terrifying journeys and have lost their families, parents – mostly young 18 to 24 and many unaccompanied minors.

But despite this the level of severity required in article 3 is difficult to prove.

Some people are forced to spend their entire lives as climate change refugees – people of the Solomon Islands are one example.

Extreme weather, drought and floods have led in part to the migration to European countries from the Middle East and African Continent.

If we don’t address the issues of climate and global warning there will be increased refugees heading towards Europe and other parts of the globe. Not out of choice but because they have no choice.

We have seen increasing demonisation and labelling of migrants and refugees as benefit tourists and economic migrants coming to steal jobs and responsible for lack of housing and jobs and services by governments with no consideration for the effects of climate change. Wednesday was the UN day for the abolition of slavery but Western governments are fast to forget their colonial pasts, stripping resources from many of the countries most impacted by climate change.

For the past 3 months I have been involved in coordinating and organising aid distributions in Calais.

﻿

﻿

The so called Jungle in Calais is not a camp – it is a shanty town where people live in inhumane conditions:

30 or so toilets for around 5000 people, 2 showers, inadequate clean water, dealing with climate issues right there as high winds and storms and heavy rains destroy tents and camping structures – made of tree branches, twigs and tarpaulin / plastic sheets, Having no mains electricity supply mean that people are walking 2 to 3 hours to collect fire wood, making fires to cook and for heat, using candles for light in the evenings and dependent on generators and gas cylinders – this has led to frequent fires- often very bad – destroying everything they have – including documents and personal items.

Illness is spreading due to inadequate conditions, lack of hot food etc and if you look at the countries those there and in other camps across Europe they are from countries impacted by the effects of climate.

Sudanese make up the majority of people in Calais – 60% - Sudan is the largest African country – arid land and desert impact on food due to climate impact on agriculture – one of the most vulnerable countries to drought in the world.

Syria has had several droughts meaning that people have to leave farmland / rural areas to overcrowded cities.

Other groups include Ethiopians and Eritreans and Iranians who have also experienced drought. Afghanistans are the second biggest community there, cold winters and hot summers, droughts and floods has led to loss of crops with 6.7 million Afghans impacted by disasters and extreme weather between 1998 and 2012.

In turn the countries most responsible for climate change are usually the ones rejecting, demonising and labelling those fleeing its effects.

The countries most responsible for historical emissions from 1850 to 2007 are in order

Migrants and refugees from the poorest countries contribute little to the causes of climate change in turn suffer disproportionately from its effects.

Higher temperatures and heavier rainfall cause drought and floods, this in turn leads to greater food and water insecurity, deepening poverty and furthering social inequality.

This leads to mass migration, displacement, conflict and millions are forced to move in order to survive.

Human instinct is to survive, human beings have been migrating since the beginning of time. When those in the West move to other countries they are ex-pats and seen as acceptable, legitimate and respectable, whilst stigmas and hatred are attached to those from poorer countries, not moving as a choice as those in the West usually do, but because they have no choice.

Climate change also threatens rights – rights to safe adequate water and food, access to health services and housing - this has a knock on impact on child poverty and deepens race and gender discrimination and inequality.

Economic instability means opportunities and rights are reduced.

Governments, trade unions and civil society have a responsibility to address and minimise the consequences for human beings of rapid global warming.

We need equitable, just and binding agreements with developed countries acting first and financing for climate change initiatives plus
Adaptation of strategies for capacity building and research.

Social inequality created by the effects of climate change must be addressed as all other social inequality should be.

We need to look at the link to austerity and cuts because there is one. Economic instability combined with climate change impacts on the poorest but also in times of austerity racism increases and the far right grows as we have seen across Europe. Racism and islamophobia is deepening every day – I have experienced and witnessed this first hand as an anti racist, equality and justice campaigner. So if you are a migrant / refugee who is black, a person of colour or Muslim you face an added level of discrimination and attack.

An issue for those seeking asylum or a new home and new start in a safe place is that they are not recognised legally as refugees if they are migrating because of climate change.

1951 Geneva Convention regarding the status of refugees says you must prove fear of persecution. The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights says it is not legally possible to apply for asylum from outside the country so for all those refugees in Calais, stuck in limbo between France and the UK, the only chance they have is to risk their lives every night trying to get on trains and in trucks - many have died and even more have serious injuries and disabilities from their attempts to get to the UK.

Those fleeing climate change do not meet the legal definition of refugee.

The UNHCR, UN Refugee Agency says that camps should be the exception for those in forced displacement and they should be permitted to exercise their rights and freedoms.

In Calais there is not even a refugee camp in the proper sense - just a makeshift shanty town on asbestos infested waste land and refugees are frequently brutalised by police in an attempt to keep them boxed into this land.

The UN says that there should be links to host communities with access to the local economy and infrastructure and service delivery to live peacefully without harassment.

Complete opposite is true in Calais – last month a high court ruled that the Calais authority must provide adequate toilet facilities and collect refuge – it is charities on the ground like L’auberge, and secour catholique together with individual voluntary groups such as my own org BARAC UK that are provided food, essentials, volunteers to sort the warehouse of donations, distribute, clean and build.

There is a gap in international law in terms of protection for climate change migrants who would need to characterise climate change as persecution. Extreme weather is harmful but does not generally meet the high threshold of persecution and they have to identify a persecutor – could be argued that developed countries, industrialised countries or the international community is the persecutor.

But they still have to meet the criteria of persecution being due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, social group etc.

Climate change does not distinguish but does impact disproportionately – more likely to be black, people of colour, indigenous.

There is an impact on human rights and the right to life, right to adequate standard of living, food, clothing, and housing are all impacted.

For those who have got through the system but are rejected and facing removal they have to show they will be removed to a place of torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, physical or mental suffering.

Refugees in Calais are all suffering from post traumatic stress due to the war, poverty or persecution they fled in the first place and in addition the journey they endured, dangerous, exhausting and frightening – many I spoke had survived the Mediterranean on perilous terrifying journeys and have lost their families, parents – mostly young 18 to 24 and many unaccompanied minors.

But despite this the level of severity required in article 3 is difficult to prove.Trade Union Response

Things unions can do:

Lobby governments

Work with orgs supporting refugees and support them

Fight racism and islamphobia

Include refugees and migrants in policies, strategies and campaigns on climate change, anti austerity and anti racism/ anti fascism work.

Lobby and strengthen human rights and immigration laws – campaign against racist immigration laws such as the UK Immigration Act which seeks to create an apartheid state -

Recent landlord pilot – means not only those who are actually migrants but those perceived to be because of name or colour will be rejected for housing or exploited – I am part of the Movement of Xenophobia and one of the organisations that form MAX, JCWI, research identified threatening, rogue landlords would exploit migrants with a disproportionate impact on women – asked to perform sexual favours and threatened with reporting to the home office if they go to the police.

In addition because landlords are expected to be immigration police and check papers, if papers are with the home office then they can’t access housing.

But not just housing, access to other services, such as driving licences, NHS, medical services, marriage license are more. Impact on students from abroad.

So support for migrants and refugees should not stop when they get asylum, because the labelling, demonisation, discrimination and disadvantage continues.

Form trade union policy on this internationally, regionally and nationally.

Support orgorganisations like my own taking aid to refugees - BARAC and MAX campaigning on issues like the immigration act. Most of us have little or no funding at all – another impact of austerity and rely on people power – I am proud my union does this and is affiliated to both orgs, example: PCS has been sponsoring our aid distribution travel and transport to Calais.

Put pressure on govs to provide humane faculties for refugees and camps.

Its winter and many could die – this is about humanity. Humanity and equality should be at the heart of our union movement.

Countries like the UK who are agreeing to woefully low numbers of asylum seekers need to be lobbied and shamed.

Speak about these issues to your union members. We know that our memberships represent a cross section of society – some of them will hold racist, biased, negative views about refugees and blame and scapegoat fuelled by government and media narrative.

We have a responsibility to provide a counter narrative and educate, mobilise and organise from a position of truth on an ongoing basis and also to form policy through our democratic structures – model motions, articles, briefings all help.

This week Indigenous Peoples released a joint statement to the UN talks.

Extract; World leaders in Paris must lead us away from the commodification of mother earth which places our lives and future on an unstable foundation based on money greed and power.

I support their position, Western countries that have benefited and profited from colonial rule, Empire, enslavement, taken from African, Asian, Latin American, Indigenous etc people now seek to bar and block the descendents of those people after they have stripped them of everything. They have a collective responsibility to act.

Climate Change will continue to displace people and so it's totally outrageous to then demonize and ostracise the victims and blame them.

Those nations that hold the most power and privilege cannot be allowed to create a climate of fear racism and displacement and must be held accountable and stand up to their responsibilities.

Trade Unions have a key role in holding them to account but also ensuring these issues are on the agenda when working and campaigning on Climate Change.

Thursday, 3 December 2015

I don’t often agree with what Max Hasting the ex-Daily
Telegraph editor says, but I have to say he has played a blinder in the last week,
with his sober and negative assessment of the case for bombing Islamic State (IS)
in Syria on BBC TV Question Time last week. Last night I watched him give his
view of the vote in Parliament for approval of bombing on the BBC TV Newsnight
programme and he was spot once again.

Hastings called the decision ‘gesture politics’ and concluded
that MPs were ‘bonkers’ for going along with the Prime Minister, David
Cameron’s desire for Britain to join the multi-national air campaign in Syria.
This is an accusation normally levelled
against left wing politicians, not least the Labour Party leader, Jeremy
Corbyn. It usually involves attending anti-government demonstrations and
advocating things like a boycott of Israeli goods, as a protest against some
perceived misjustice. Hastings added that is also a dangerous policy.

What Hastings meant by using this term gesture, was that, important
though it may be to stand in solidarity with our French allies, it is not a
rational justification for dropping bombs on a country when there is no
credible plan for destroying IS or for it making the British people safer, at
home or abroad.

This is the rub really, the Labour MP Margaret Beckett, an
ex-Foreign Secretary, who voted in favour of the airstrikes made the point in
the debate in Parliament. She said ‘our French allies has explicitly asked us
for such support, and I invite the House to consider how we would feel, and
what we would say if what took place in Paris had happened in London – if we
had explicitly asked France for support and France had refused.’

Hiliary Benn, shadow Foreign Secretary, who won plaudits in Parliament and the media
for his rounding off speech, probably because Cameron was so poor at arguing
his case, made similar points. He referred to the Labour Party’s tradition of
internationalism and the United Nations resolution which he said authorised the
bombing, although that is contested by many international law experts. He also
referred to France’s government as ‘socialist’, which is only true if you accept
the very broadest definition of the term.

We heard a lot of MPs listing the atrocities committed by
IS, but this is uncontested, everyone would like to see IS stopped from
murdering more people, but how will a handful of British warplanes dropping a
few bombs make the slightest difference?

Emotional arguments like this were put forward by others
too, including the Prime Minister, but on the substantive issue of what will
this air campaign achieve, there was little or nothing, and what there was, was
wishful thinking, not a clear headed assessment of the military and diplomatic
situation in Syria and the region.

In the end the government got a 174 vote majority in
Parliament, with 66 Labour MPs supporting the airstrikes, and others
abstaining. 153 Labour MPs voted against along-side 53 SNP (and their 2
suspended MPs), 3 SDLP, 2 Lib Dems, 7 Tories, 2 PC MPs and Caroline Lucas the
Green Party MP. A total of 223 against and 397 for.

And so, we have got ourselves into another foreign military
adventure, probably for the foreseeable future, with all the loss of civilian
life in Syria it will entail, and perhaps elsewhere too. I admit it made me despair watching the
debate last night, after all we have gone through since the 2001 attack by
hijacked aeroplanes on New York and Washington DC. No lessons have been learned despite
all the evidence that this will likely inflame the situation even more.

We elect MPs to take difficult decisions on our behalf, but
we should be able to expect that these representatives take an intelligent,
informed and rational view. Instead many MPs last night based their decision on
emotion and a knee jerk reaction to the mass killing in Paris last month. The
MPs who voted for this air campaign have let us down.

Is it any wonder that over a third of those registered to
vote in general elections do not use their vote, let alone all those who don’t
even bother to register?

Monday, 30 November 2015

Since Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party,
let’s not forget, with a massive majority in the member’s ballot, there has
been constant sniping from the Labour Right. Leaks to newspapers from shadow
cabinet Ministers, ‘senior MPs’ and random Blairite ex spin doctors, have
abounded.

Mutterings about how fit Corbyn and his shadow chancellor John
McDonnell are for office, poor opinion poll ratings for Labour and stories of
splits over policy with shadow cabinet members all are meant to show a party in
turmoil. It has all been part of a softening up process, readying the ground
for a coup.

The current disagreement between Corbyn and his shadow
cabinet has though taken this confrontation to a new level. Ironically, this, what
now can only be called a civil war, has been triggered by a real war issue in
Syria. As perhaps over a
hundred Labour MPs contemplate voting with the government for extending
airstrikes into Syria, this is the first full scale rebellion by the Labour
Right since Corbyn’s election.

The strategy seems to be at this stage, to try and force
Corbyn into resigning, ‘for the good of the party’. How can he be leader when more than half of
the shadow cabinet are against him they ask? The damage that this split will do
to the party, only goes to make a Tory win in 2020 inevitable, and look at all
those working class folk who will suffer. If Labour polls badly in Thursday’s
by-election in Oldham West, the pressure will increase even further.

The problem with all of this for the plotters is that Corbyn
shows no sign of resigning and even if they can force another leadership
election, all the indications are that Corbyn will win again amongst the
membership. With Corbyn allowing a free vote for his MPs, and if they vote in large
numbers against his position, he will look weakened, and that is a
victory for the rebels. Then they will return to the drip, drip of damaging
media leaks.

The Labour Left are probably not going to take this lying
down though, and I was alerted to this by a blog by David Osland, a well-known
figure on the Labour Left. Writing on the Left
Futures blog, in a piece titled ‘Time for the Labour Left to debate
reselection of MPs’, Osland says:

For the past three
months, the very word ‘reselection’ has been unmentionable in Labour left
circles, for fear that even talking about it would represent an unwarranted
provocation of the Labour right. But as the events of the last 48 hours clearly
underline, it’s time to break the taboo.

At the very least,
Corbyn supporters now have to – how can I put this gently? – engage in measured
debate on how we approach the next round of trigger ballots for sitting MPs.

A member of the Labour Party that I know tells me, that in
his south London constituency, the new members are causing tension in the local
party as the old guard resist their attempts to get the party behind Corbyn’s
new old Labour platform. My friend describes himself as on the Labour Left and
voted for Corbyn, but he doesn’t think Corbyn will be Labour leader at the next
general election.

The problem for the Labour Left, is that it will take time
to organise successfully, many years probably, and time doesn’t seem to be in
Corbyn’s favour. The elections next May for the Scottish Parliament and the
Welsh and London Assemblies will need to show an improvement in Labour’s
electoral appeal, or things could get very bleak for Corbyn.

Labour’s warmongering foreign polices of recent years make
this issue totemic for the changed party that Corbyn's leadership signals, many members and supporters left Labour
over the Iraq war, me included, and to put behind them those years, Labour
needs to oppose a further escalation of our military actions abroad. I think
for the Labour Right, it is the best chance yet for them to topple Corbyn.

Labour has traditionally been rather sentimental over its
leaders, and unlike the Tories, rarely force their leaders out. I think Corbyn
is an exception, and it is just a matter of time before someone plunges the
metaphorical dagger into his back (or front).

Sunday, 29 November 2015

The last few weeks have seen the best and the worst in terms
of climate change.

Victories which pundits told us for years were
"impossible" have been coming at a breathtaking pace. Coal demand is
in terminal decline worldwide, after a dramatic – if not complete – change of
course in China. Oil is also in trouble, with Shell and Statoil retreating from
the Alaskan Arctic, President Obama rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and
Alberta putting a cap on tar sands oil. Meanwhile, cities and companies are
signing up for a 100% renewable future. Many communities hit by extreme weather
are rebuilding sustainably and hundreds of thousands worldwide are building
people power to push forward with climate action now – and in the future.

At the same time the news is getting worse. This year will
be the hottest year in recorded history. And Indonesia´s forest fires were a
massive blow for climate action, emitting more than the entire United States of
America – a powerful reminder of just how fast hard-won emission reductions can
be jeoparized by greed. Also, despite the climate movement´s recent victories,
too often polluters are still dictating policy in North and South. The energy
revolution, which is now inevitable, is not going as fast as it needs to, if
we’re to keep our climate safe.

The meaning of this year´s climate negotiations has been
changed by the recent attacks in Paris, the host city. In response to these
terrible crimes, the climate marches around the world this weekend are not just
a call to action, but an expression of our shared humanity. Governments must
hear this call and make the climate negotiations demonstrate that human
cooperation can solve our common problems.

In order to do that, the Paris climate conference must be a
starting point for faster and more decisive climate action. As Greenpeace, we
have three key criteria that governments must meet:

1. Does the Paris climate agreement send a signal that the
age of fossil fuels is over?

The world of energy is changing quickly. Governments in
Paris must solidify the direction towards renewables that the world is already
on, and state clearly that fossil fuels must be completely phased out by 2050.
We need a just transition to a world run on 100% renewable energy for all; a
world where workers, our health and our children win. This signal must be
clear. It must not be stymied by delays. Therefore, we will ask:

We already know that the pledges governments are coming to
Paris with are not good enough and will still lead to a very dangerous and
destructive world (between 2.7 and 3.7 degrees warmer than in preindustrial
times – the estimates vary). Governments and companies need to increase their
ambition immediately after Paris. We simply cannot afford to be stuck with
insufficient targets for the next 10-15 decisive years. The targets must be
ramped up before the Paris agreement enters into force in 2020. And governments
need to review and enhance their actions every five years after the Paris
agreement comes into force in 2020.

3. Does the Paris climate agreement deliver global
solidarity and ensure that polluters pay for the damage they cause?

Some impacts of climate change are with us already and we
need sufficient and reliable funding and support for those affected.
Greenpeace, for example, supports anchoring the "loss and damage
mechanism" under the Paris Agreement, to help support the vulnerable. We
expect governments to meet the growing adaptation needs. We will also continue
to hold polluters accountable, as we are doing with our call on the Commission
on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR). We need the culpability of big fossil
fuel companies for fuelling catastrophic climate change to be addressed.

If the three criteria above are met, we’ll take an important
step towards a world in which energy is clean, cheap and accessible to all. A
world where air and water will be cleaner and where global warming avoids truly
hazardous temperatures.

But even if governments take us this one step forward in
Paris, it is still only one step. We are the ones that have to keep marching to
get us to where we need to go. We need to keep up the pressure in the months
and years after the Paris summit. The race between renewables and climate
change will only be won if we keep winning like we have been doing on Keystone,
coal and the Arctic. We must continue to build our power as a climate movement
worldwide in 2016. This is how we force politicians across the globe to end the
fossil fuel era and deliver a decent environment for all.

Friday, 27 November 2015

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, told the House of Commons
yesterday, that the Royal Air Force bombing of Islamic State (IS) in Syria will
make the British public safer from attack here at home. On what basis he makes
this claim, is far from clear though, as all the real evidence suggests that
taking this action will make it more likely that the UK is targeted by IS.

The recent history of Britain’s involvement in military
action in the middle-east is not a happy one, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya,
our interventions have been an unmitigated disaster. IS didn’t even exist
before the invasion of Iraq and were kept in check in Libya, until we bombed
that country to facilitate the removal of Gaddafi’s regime. Now jihadists
control parts of Libya as well as parts of Iraq and Syria.

Ten years ago, in the wake of the London transport system
bombings by four British Muslim men, another group of four tried to repeat the
atrocity, but their homemade bombs failed to detonate. At their trial the men
said that they had watched video footage of Western airstrikes on Muslim countries to
get themselves into the mood to carry out the retaliatory operation in London.
There is no reason to think that if we bomb Syria, it will be anything but a further encouragement to would-be jihadists here in the UK.

The attacks on Paris and the Russian passenger plane in
Egypt, came after these countries got involved in bombing Syria, which seems to
confirm that their action prompted these terrorists reprisals.

Cameron made the all too familiar claim that our bombs are
so accurate that there will be no chance of civilian casualties, which is not
borne out by recent experience, and it is hard to see how aerial bombardment
can dislodge IS from urban areas, without a ground force to clear and secure
territory. The Refugee crisis in Europe will no doubt be made worse by more
bombing.

Cameron’s other claim, that the Free Syrian Army has 70,000
soldiers in Syria, is disputed by almost everyone, the US military included,
who say they are tiny in numbers. Indeed, they would have been defeated by now
by Assad’s government forces if it wasn’t for the jihadi groups also taking on
Assad.

The Kurdish fighters in Rojava have greater numbers, but
still they are insufficient to conquer IS in the widespread areas under its
control. Assad’s forces (and allies like Hezbollah) are the only effective
fighting forces with the capability to be ranged against IS in Syria. But there is still a reluctance to
aid Assad in Western countries.

It is very complicated situation in Syria because of
regional rivalries, with Turkey more interested in fighting the Kurds than IS
and Saudi Arabia and some of the smaller Gulf states are more concerned with
fighting the Shia forces of Assad, Hezbollah and Iran. IS receives plenty of
funding from Saudi individuals too. Russia of course is backing Assad to
further complicate matters.

Cameron claims that bombing IS will degrade their capability
to attack the UK, but this is another flimsy argument. The US and others have
been bombing Syria for over a year now, and it didn’t stop the Paris attack. It
must make it more difficult for IS to operate in Syria, but that is all. For the
UK to add a few more bombers to the existing efforts, will not make any
material difference to the restricting IS on the ground in Syria.

Corbyn, it seems, has failed to convince his shadow cabinet
and many of his MPs to oppose this military action, and it is looking like the
government will win a vote in Parliament, probably next week. The Labour leader will no doubt
allow a free vote for Labour MPs on the issue, as the alternative is to have
most of the shadow cabinet rebelling. This might solve the disagreement within
the PLP, but it will also undermine Corbyn’s authority as leader.

Labour MPs appear to have been swayed by the emotional
rhetoric that Cameron deployed in the debate yesterday. Have they learnt
nothing from recent experience? It doesn’t look like they have.